> Great design isn’t superficial, in the least. A great user experience is a great user experience... it doesn’t mean compromising because something was hard, and it doesn’t throw away how the product is used or has evolved.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The complaint I am making, is that a lot of UX design is superficial, and done for the wrong reasons. Most of what Mozilla has done is terrible.
They've essentially gutted their browser because they want to be cool like Google.
But if we’re talking about ideals, then why wouldn’t you advocate for change towards great design versus stagnation? Now if you don’t trust Mozilla to pull it off, then that’s a different argument than so far has been made.
While I don’t personally know the designers at Mozilla, I’m doubtful that they simply “wanted to be cool like Google” and instead did their own research. I could be wrong but usually work isn’t so arbitrarily done for large products and teams.
Most of the sibling comments here are a “get off my lawn” type variety that IMHO are not fully informed by what good UX means. Great design isn’t superficial, in the least. A great user experience is a great user experience... it doesn’t mean compromising because something was hard, and it doesn’t throw away how the product is used or has evolved.
We should be aiming to improve and innovate to be helpful, not stagnate. And improvement means people’s existing needs are considered, not disregarded as many here seem to think.